As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The New GOP Thread: Taking Anti-Intellectualism to a Whole New Level

1202123252660

Posts

  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I knew scalia was a nazi.

    Edith Upwards on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Did an supreme court Justice just fucking Godwin Brown v. Board of Education?

    nexuscrawler on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    :facepalm. Did Antonin Scalia just pull a Godwyn?

    Pi-r8 on
  • psychotixpsychotix __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    Did an supreme court Justice just fucking Godwin Brown v. Board of Education?

    Yes, yes he did.

    psychotix on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    "The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
    Well it's a good thing he can communicate his opinion to those of us living in the world today thanks to his fucking time machine.

    Bama on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Remind me who appointed Scalia to the supreme court.

    Henroid on
  • KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Remind me who appointed Scalia to the supreme court.
    Reagan.

    To be fair, it is the logical consequence of Scalia's stated philosophy. At least he's consistent.

    Kanamit on
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Reagan of course.

    NailbunnyPD on
    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I have to think Bryer was in the backround on stage like this the whole time that was happening:
    facepalm.jpg
    "Seriously, I work with this fucker guys. Imagine how much drinking I do."

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    To be honest, I'm really surprised that the article wasn't about Clarence Thomas.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I have to think Bryer was in the backround on stage like this the whole time that was happening:
    facepalm.jpg
    "Seriously, I work with this fucker guys. Imagine how much drinking I do."

    You would think the others know better than to be caught in a room with Scalia and the press.

    NailbunnyPD on
    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Reagan of course.

    Y'know, I knew the answer, but I was hoping that reality would snap and crack at the rage I feel over how stupid Justice Scalia is. It's sorta like "I wish I could hate you to death," only more along the lines of, "I wish I could hate history enough to alter it."

    Henroid on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Kanamit wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Remind me who appointed Scalia to the supreme court.
    Reagan.

    To be fair, it is the logical consequence of Scalia's stated philosophy. At least he's consistent.

    Except that he isn't.

    moniker on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Kanamit wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Remind me who appointed Scalia to the supreme court.
    Reagan.

    To be fair, it is the logical consequence of Scalia's stated philosophy. At least he's consistent.

    Except that he isn't.

    All encompassing executive power is awesome if the executive is George Bush, as an example.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Wow. Scalia is an even bigger douchebag than I thought. I mean, seriously- does he honestly think that the Constitution should have been frozen in a block of inpenetratable mystic ice upon the last drop of ink- never to be added to or changed with the needs of society? Is he seriously stating that only a strict interpretation of what men wrote over 200 years ago is how we should govern our country- with no regard to situations that they could have never in a million years conceived?

    Is he that fucking stupid?

    Tach on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Tach wrote: »
    Wow. Scalia is an even bigger douchebag than I thought. I mean, seriously- does he honestly think that the Constitution should have been frozen in a block of inpenetratable mystic ice upon the last drop of ink- never to be added to or changed with the needs of society? Is he seriously stating that only a strict interpretation of what men wrote over 200 years ago is how we should govern our country- with no regard to situations that they could have never in a million years conceived?

    Is he that fucking stupid?

    He seems to forget his "strict constructionist" mentality when it comes to rendering a verdict that conservatives like.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • HavelockHavelock Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    "The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''

    o_O


    Bet he's a real gas at parties.

    Havelock on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Tach wrote: »
    Wow. Scalia is an even bigger douchebag than I thought. I mean, seriously- does he honestly think that the Constitution should have been frozen in a block of inpenetratable mystic ice upon the last drop of ink- never to be added to or changed with the needs of society? Is he seriously stating that only a strict interpretation of what men wrote over 200 years ago is how we should govern our country- with no regard to situations that they could have never in a million years conceived?

    Is he that fucking stupid?

    No, he's saying that as a bullshit reason that he will selectively ignore in order to further policies that Reagan would have liked.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Havelock wrote: »
    "The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''

    o_O


    Bet he's a real gas at parties.

    It's infinitely amendable. If it were simply a constraint, I wouldn't be able to vote.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Scalia cautioned against "inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed." Scalia said he advocates an "originalist" approach to the Constitution, warning against an "evolutionary" legal philosophy that he described as, "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''
    Most of our greatest advances are the court basically inventing new rights for people or institutions. Marbury v. Madison for example. Another is the court cases that said the federal government and make it illegal to employ children.

    Couscous on
  • jhunter46jhunter46 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, one of our Supreme Court Justices
    In an appearance at the University of Arizona College of Law, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that if he were on the court in 1954, he would have dissented in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision that ended school segregation based on race.

    Appearing on stage with Justice Stephen Breyer, Scalia cautioned against "inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed." Scalia said he advocates an "originalist" approach to the Constitution, warning against an "evolutionary" legal philosophy that he described as, "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''

    Phoenix's East Valley Tribune reported:
    Using his "originalist'' philosophy, Scalia said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of "separate but equal'' public schools. He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better.

    "I will stipulate that it will,'' Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right. "Kings can do some stuff, some good stuff, that a democratic society could never do,'' he continued.

    "Hitler developed a wonderful automobile,'' Scalia said. "What does that prove?''


    "The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''

    At least link the article.

    Later in the article points out,
    "He specifically warned that those who approach the Constitution as Breyer suggests will not always find courts expanding the definition of individual liberties. He said a court that decides one day that something is cruel and unusual punishment could just as easily decide down the road to allow something that now is considered barbaric.

    "It goes both ways,'' he said.

    "The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia continued. "And that's not what a constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''

    Scalia said those who do not share his "originalist'' philosophy are now deciding what the 14th Amendment of the Constitution means, the one that guarantees "equal protection of the laws'' to all citizens.

    "Does it include same-sex marriage? A requirement for equal pay for equal work?'' he mused. Scalia said those who believe in an "evolutionary'' approach "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''

    I also liked,
    Scalia said even his 2001 decision outlawing the use of "thermal imaging'' equipment to let police peer through walls to see activity inside a house did not require him to use an evolutionary approach to the Constitution, even though such equipment did not exist in the 18th century.

    "I did it by regarding what the framers would have thought about a technique that essentially intrudes into the house without the consent of the homeowners to find out what is going on in the house,'' Scalia said. "They clearly would have thought that was unlawful.''

    He said there is a remedy for those who want different or broader rights: go to the Legislature. He said those bodies are free to decide whether abortion or homosexual activities should be legal.

    These seem like solid legal opinions based on a solid legal philosophy.

    jhunter46 on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    He is also using a false dichotomy. Something can change while still constraining the desire of society.

    Couscous on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    psychotix wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Travan wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    That's an excellent point. Personally, I thought that the Alaska Wildlife Preserves wouldn't be enough to make up for the fact that that Texas is close to being tapped dry (barring a lot of investment in new infrastructure), and that the Gulf of Mexico will be controlled by the United States Navy.

    Plus, think about it...Alaska? Less than 700,000 people right? A couple of battalions of Russian Marines, along with their tanks, BTRs, and food and *BAM*, it's the Autonomous Alaskan Oblast before you could say "Don't shoot, I'm Inuit" in Russian. Plus, even if they could remain independent, how would they even get the oil back to dur Hartland efficiently enough? Pipelines won't work.

    Then again, when their roads turn to dust, it won't matter anyway.

    I guess I can't complain about people having secessionist fetishes when I seem to have a fetish for them seceding and plummeting to hell while on fire.

    This has basically been my reaction since secession threats became a thing. "You mean you'd voluntarily relieve me of the burden of treating you as a fellow citizen? The fuck are you waiting for?"

    "Have fun as a sovereign country! It's all the risks of being an American and none of the nuclear weapons or billion dollar aircraft carriers!"

    "But...but, if Lithuania can do it, so can we!"

    Actually they'd be a pretty major nuclear power. Naval would depend if they got Virginia.

    All the launch codes are in DC, the entire nerve center for intel and dod is in VA... and NoVA, you know, the liberal commie va.

    If the Washington Government is willing resort to force to keep states from seceding based on technicalities in the constitution, I'd be shocked if they wouldn't do it over goddamn nuclear launch codes.

    When the Ukranian SSR became the Republic of Ukraine, and then left, they didn't get to keep all those lovely supersonic strategic nuclear bombers. They went back to Moscow Government, or were willingly placed under their direct control. Texas and Alaska sure as hell aren't going to able to keep any missiles in silos. If they don't want civil war, they're going to have to give them up immediately.

    Synthesis on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Original intent is just a completely ridiculous thing to reason based on, period.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sooo, to Scalia, the Constitution's role is to restrain the American people and not protect them.

    Henroid on
  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, one of our Supreme Court Justices
    In an appearance at the University of Arizona College of Law, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that if he were on the court in 1954, he would have dissented in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision that ended school segregation based on race.

    Appearing on stage with Justice Stephen Breyer, Scalia cautioned against "inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed." Scalia said he advocates an "originalist" approach to the Constitution, warning against an "evolutionary" legal philosophy that he described as, "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''

    Phoenix's East Valley Tribune reported:
    Using his "originalist'' philosophy, Scalia said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of "separate but equal'' public schools. He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better.

    "I will stipulate that it will,'' Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right. "Kings can do some stuff, some good stuff, that a democratic society could never do,'' he continued.

    "Hitler developed a wonderful automobile,'' Scalia said. "What does that prove?''


    "The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''

    At least link the article.

    Later in the article points out,
    "He specifically warned that those who approach the Constitution as Breyer suggests will not always find courts expanding the definition of individual liberties. He said a court that decides one day that something is cruel and unusual punishment could just as easily decide down the road to allow something that now is considered barbaric.

    "It goes both ways,'' he said.

    "The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia continued. "And that's not what a constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''

    Scalia said those who do not share his "originalist'' philosophy are now deciding what the 14th Amendment of the Constitution means, the one that guarantees "equal protection of the laws'' to all citizens.

    "Does it include same-sex marriage? A requirement for equal pay for equal work?'' he mused. Scalia said those who believe in an "evolutionary'' approach "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''

    I also liked,
    Scalia said even his 2001 decision outlawing the use of "thermal imaging'' equipment to let police peer through walls to see activity inside a house did not require him to use an evolutionary approach to the Constitution, even though such equipment did not exist in the 18th century.

    "I did it by regarding what the framers would have thought about a technique that essentially intrudes into the house without the consent of the homeowners to find out what is going on in the house,'' Scalia said. "They clearly would have thought that was unlawful.''

    He said there is a remedy for those who want different or broader rights: go to the Legislature. He said those bodies are free to decide whether abortion or homosexual activities should be legal.

    These seem like solid legal opinions based on a solid legal philosophy.

    See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.

    big l on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2009
    the only reason scalia is not literally a cancer on america is because he himself is not a seething, pulsating, eyeless tumor

    and even then he comes close

    Rust on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Original intent is just a completely ridiculous thing to reason based on, period.

    Would the original founders have approved of alien and sedition acts that obviously violate the constitution? Well, OK, we can pass those now.

    Would the founders approve of sentencing a man to hang for theft or sodomy? Well, OK, that is now constitutional and doesn't violate the cruel and unusual punishment part.

    Would the founders approve and allow brutally killing and wiping out entire cultures for their land? They would? Well, alright!

    Couscous on
  • jhunter46jhunter46 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.

    He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.

    The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.

    An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.

    If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

    jhunter46 on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
    Intent to protect certain rights will inherently require the protection other rights. Just because the founding fathers weren't willing to take the rights closer to their logical conclusion doesn't mean we can't.

    Couscous on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
    The intention of the men who wrote the Constitution was to lay down a framework that future generations could use, because they knew that society changes, as does technology.

    Captain Carrot on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.

    He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.

    The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.

    An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.

    If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

    1) How arrogant do you have to be to think you knew the intent of the framers? We use what we have and do our best.

    2) Who cares? They were men like other men and pretty damn fallible. They had some fantastic ideas and some less than fantastic ideas. A strict originalist interpretation is flawed in this godhood myth it creates around the members of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Sooo, to Scalia, the Constitution's role is to restrain the American people and not protect them.
    "[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

    It is Constitutional, in his twisted and selective philosophy, to execute an innocent man. It is, however, unconstitutional for an innocent man to pay for evidence to be tested which will exonerate him.
    In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court said state authorities in Alaska did not violate the constitutional rights of a convicted rapist when they refused to allow him to test the DNA evidence in his case years after his conviction.

    DA v Osborne

    moniker on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The Founding Fathers wouldn't foresee the things we see as being issues that are unanswered. Either because it slipped their mind at the time or they maybe thought it was fucking obvious. I dunno. I'm just musing here. Where do I send my hate mail to regarding Scalia?

    Henroid on
  • MaceraMacera Registered User
    edited October 2009
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.

    He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.

    The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.

    An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.

    If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

    Slavery?

    edit: dang that was a lot of posts that came in at the same time

    Macera on
    xet8c.gif
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Sooo, to Scalia, the Constitution's role is to restrain the American people and not protect them.
    "[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

    It is Constitutional, in his twisted and selective philosophy, to execute an innocent man. It is, however, unconstitutional for an innocent man to pay for evidence to be tested which will exonerate him.
    In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court said state authorities in Alaska did not violate the constitutional rights of a convicted rapist when they refused to allow him to test the DNA evidence in his case years after his conviction.

    DA v Osborne

    moniker your post makes me die inside.

    Edit - And just for the record, what the flippity fuck is wrong with Alaska and rape? It's like they always get it wrong!

    Henroid on
  • TheMarshalTheMarshal Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.

    He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.

    The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.

    An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.

    If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

    Weren't there, like, 20 states when the Constitution was written? 20 states and 200k people? I think keeping the intentions of the framers in mind (or at least whatever we think they may be) is a good idea, but times change.

    TheMarshal on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.

    He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.

    The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.

    And then we had a Civil War and wrote the 14th Amendment. Should we be basing our 'original' views with regards to 18th century or 19th century politicians?
    An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.

    Only because the Court decided that the ideal of the law trumps the lettering of it. Which is not a very 'originalist' view to hold.
    If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

    Which framers?

    moniker on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The argument has merit. If there's a right that isn't in the original Constitution but that everyone agrees really ought to be protected, the Constitution can be amended to add that right.

    What we're doing now is using the courts to protect rights that they were never actually given the legal authority to protect, but we're pretending that they do have that authority because those rights desperately need to be protected and the legislatures are failing to adequately do so. Ideally, Congress and the Senate would do their damn jobs, and the higher courts would spend most of their time napping until issues that are actually legally complex come up.

    It's one of those cases (illegal immigration is another) where the current process is completely insane, but amending it would either be impossible or make the situation far worse.

    jothki on
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    jhunter46 wrote: »
    See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.

    He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.

    The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.

    An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.

    If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

    Ok, so it's not worth the paper it's written on. Who cares. I could give a flying fuck what the framers wanted. I live now. They don't.

    NotYou on
This discussion has been closed.